Since Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman is on the list, a book that is not about science but about Feynman's anecdotes from his life about his friends, coworkers and family, I can't see why The God Delusion isn't. It's such a big science advocacy, and has influenced many atheists towards science even more so.

Are you gonna keep downvoting me or are you going to explain why you think this comment doesn't contribute?

Games can not be stripped off their random elements. Having too many of them is certainly detrimental, but with a balance of them follows a massive amount of depth that continues to surprise players through ever evolving tactics and applications of risk taking.

Take as an example this one of air-accuracy and risk calculation. Coldzera took a very calculated very high risk move against 4 seasoned players who know he's below, to take a close, unarmored, unscoped jump shot with the AWP.

What made this play amazing can not be removed from a holistic account of its context. First there is the pressing situation. not only are they playing against a good team who is about to beat them but they are on an important LAN in front of a big audience for a qualifying spot to the grand finals.

Second there is the play itself. As I said before, no armor, no scope, jumpshot for a vital double kill after getting one to avoid having to rely on retaking the site.

Third there is the greater context of the effectiveness and applicability of jumpshots. KQLY and subsequent analysis of the viability of jump shots opened up a whole fucking world of finishing plays for players. I dare say coldzera might not even have thought of attempting that second shot, or might have calculated it as too risky, if KQLY had never happened. The realization of the actual viability of jump shots simply changed and subsequent plays with it.

If you've made it this far I might as well add an unrelated point to emphasize the one above: further usage of jump shots after they got popularized have changed Valve's opinion on the immediacy of changing their function. They very recently changed how shooting mid-air works, certainly in response to increased usage of it allowing them to see the faults of it.

Now what the fuck does this have to do with armor and aimpunch? I dont' know, I'm not one for tying knots up. But I do know that it adds a certain amount of depth to one's gameplay. You know that no matter how cocksure you are of your aim, you can't expect it to be quite as efficient against enemies who are more likely to hit you. It adds a certain amount of hesitation to rushing fully geared blindly out to ecoing but awaiting enemies. A quick mental calculation and knowledge of the game and its aimpunch will make you aware that you might lose that fight. Aimpunch in that sense sure doesn't allow (as far as we've seen) for as flashy plays as we saw above, but I hope the greater context I explained shows how it adds depth to the game in a wide sense.

What has aimpunch done for me? It has really helped me to fix my problem of overexposing myself. Taking one angle at a time, and have it as tight as it can be.

Or if it makes you happy, stop thinking of it as random punishment, but a reward for the other player for aiming well.

He is right about you being wrong. If you want to really know why light goes slower through glass than through air, read Richard Feynman's QED, chapters 1 to 3. With only patience and the ability to grasp logical concepts you will be able to understand why this happens, with his way of describing the theory of quantum electrodynamics.

He does it by talking about monochromatic light sources that emit photons that each have a certain amplitude arrow pointing in different directions at different times (ultimately depending on the light's wavelength) - and they all add up to a final arrow, the length of which squared equals to the probability of light going that way. I can't explain the theory well enough, I would just have to paraphrase Feynman from his book so you should just read it yourself - it's completely doable, but on page 109 he finishes explaining that idea of light slowing down through material with these words:

"That's why I said earlier that light appears to go slower through glass (or water) than through air. In reality the "slowing" of the light is extra turning (of the arrow) caused by the atoms in the glass (or water) scattering the light. The degree to which there is extra turning of the final arrow as light goes through a given material is called its "index of refraction".

So your idea of the photon taking time to get "absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms of the material" is wrong. I've seen this cited as the explanation of light slowing down through materials here on Reddit before but someone always replied to it saying it was wrong. Unfortunately this misunderstanding is spreading like wildfire because it makes sense in our minds, as opposed to the idea of simply adding amplitude arrows to get out the final result, which is correct as far as we can tell even though our brain thinks it's screwy.

I can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

I can be reasonably sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

I can go shopping alone most of the time, fairly well assured that I will not be followed or harassed by store detectives.

I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.

When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

I can be fairly sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another woman's voice in a group in which she is the only member of her race.

I can go into a book shop and count on finding the writing of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can deal with my hair.

Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance that I am financially reliable.

I could arrange to protect our young children most of the time from people who might not like them.

I did not have to educate our children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

I can remain oblivious to the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

I can be reasonably sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race.

If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out of place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

I can be fairly sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing, or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or selfseeking.

I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.

I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative, or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

If I have low credibility as a leader, I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

I can easily find academic courses and institutions that give attention only to people of my race.

I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

I'd rather see a UI as they are than a constant cherry picking of minimalistic UIs. Don't get me wrong, I'm minimalistic, but I love to watch it like they saw it.

And on that same note, intros are generally by far the worst and most tedious parts of videos. Nobody cares. They are all alike. All the relevant info is in the name or description of the video, and if it is not it has never been in a generic intro I've ever seen.

Just give it to me straight. Cut to interesting PoVs if applicable, otherwise raw.

I get the appeal you're after though. I'm just saying that's not the audience they are appealing to.

To be honest I could just respond with something just as stupid like "If the name for your equality movement is not a palindrome then you're not a true egalitarian!" but I'm sure you mean no actual harm, you're just uninformed of a decades old academic movement and base your views on a few tumblr links from 15 year olds that happen to pop up on /r/all.

A lot of social injustice today towards men and women comes from the marginalization of women both in academic fields and their general social status. Of course, it goes without saying, if you marginalize one half, the other is going to be marginalized to the opposite side. Unfortunately women were not pushed to the side and men went to the opposite side, they were pushed below men and men trone on top. That's why the movement for the equality of genders is named after women, because they needed to fucking fight fiercely to be, amongst other basic undisputable human rights, able to vote.

This movement has later evolved to include any gender that is under, but kept it's name both because of the history of the battle that started with mainly women fighting - and because true equality has in no way been reached for women which are still under in most, if not all societies in the world, in most important ways.

Well, no, not in general, but let's say in every conversation I have I point out that there are slightly more male rapists than female rapists. I also constantly add that most of the convicted violent offenders, drug dealers, smugglers and male strippers are male. Most of the people who go to war are male, so are the people who wage wars. These are all statistics, but rather meaningless and skewed. Bringing this up in a normal conversation, aside from being inane, is nonsensical and would point towards man hatred, not someone "just stating facts".

Ha, ha... no, your violence would be something you're doing. Rape isn't sex which requires consent, rape is violence. But this grey area of moderate intoxication and consented sex is indeed somewhat problematic purely on paper. Also, do you get heavily intoxicated after shotgunning a beer?

Gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness and in a lot of cases getting the change leads to more depression.

Strictly untrue. I love it when someone cites this as a fact. It comes from an article and is so easy to utterly destroy.

If we're looking for appeal to authority, Dr. McHugh is contradicting the official position of the APA on the subject. But better yet, we're talking about the kind of man who - after being appointed to the Catholic review board to deal with priests abusing kids in the Church - characterizes it as not a pedophilia issue but rather, and I quote, "homosexual predation on American Catholic youth".

As for the study he cites, he's referring to to this Swedish study from a few years back. He is correct in noting that post-transition trans people had elevated mortality and suicide rates...but only if they transitioned before 1989 and only compared to the general population (and not to pre-transition trans folks). They note:

For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.

In fact, they specifically note that there is no such difference for the post-1989 cohort, and other studies demonstrate decreases in suicidality relative to pre-transition folks - both facts that Dr. McHugh conveniently ignores. The study's conclusion specifically notes:

Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

They're calling for more help, not for less.

So here we have someone with a very clear pre-existing religiously-motivated agenda citing studies to argue against their conclusions and cherry-picking the data convenient for him. If you'd like some actual data on the subject:

Heylans et al., 2014: "A difference in SCL-90 [a test of distress, anxiety, and hostility] overall psychoneurotic distress was observed at the different points of assessments (P = 0.003), with the most prominent decrease occurring after the initiation of hormone therapy (P < 0.001)...Furthermore, the SCL-90 scores resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated."

Here is a broad survey conducted in the UK. Unlike the previous links, it's not peer-reviewed, but the large sample size provides some corroboration of the above results. In particular, we have: (Page 15): "Stage of transition had a substantial impact upon life satisfaction within the sample. 70% of the participants stated that they were more satisfied with their lives since transition, compared to 2% who were less satisfied (N=671)" (Page 50): " Most participants who had transitioned felt that their mental health was better after doing so (74%), compared to only 5% who felt it was worse (N=353)." (Page 55): "For participants who had transitioned, this had led to changes in their self-harming. 63% felt that they harmed themselves more before they transitioned, with only 3% harming themselves more after transition (N=206)." (Page 59): "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition. 7% found that this increased during transition, which has implications for the support provided to those undergoing these processes (N=316)."

de Vries, et al., 2014 studied 55 trans teens from the onset of treatment in their early teenage years through a follow-up an average of 7 years later. They found no negative outcomes, no regrets, and in fact their group was slightly mentally healthier than non-trans controls.

Lawrence, 2003 surveyed post-op trans folk: "Participants reported overwhelmingly that they were happy with their SRS results and that SRS had greatly improved the quality of their lives. None reported outright regret and only a few expressed even occasional regret."